• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How many times can you take credit for the same 500,000 jobs?

Gimmesometruth said:
We did lower taxes on individuals who spend a greater amount of their incomes, it helped....but that is demand stimulation, not the corporate tax/supply side fiscal policy you were referring to.




I know, that is always the next dance step you take after setting up a negative claim you made....... you expect the other person to prove your point.

If you, someone who claims to have worked in the govt for decades, really believes that POTUS's of the past have not repeated talking points....it shows you just don't have a clue.
I mean...I knew that already.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what tax reduction I intended. In fact, I meant both.
Again, I invite you to name a POTUS who has taken credit time after time after time for the same jobs, and in a way obviously intended to disguise his serial reuse of the same achievement.:cool:
 
How many times can you take credit for the same 500,000 jobs?
Depends ...

obama jobs speech morning joe.jpg​
 
OpportunityCost said:
If you think the bailout wasnt fiscal stimulation you are fooling yourself. It was gigantic cash outlays to buy out bad assets and keep credit liquid to allow financial markets to keep lending. It may have been more important than the stimulus. And its been getting paid back....
Click to expand...
Exactly, it is being paid back, ie it was not being spent as a demand stimulus. And the portion that went to the banks did not cause them to ease lending requirements. So any demand stimulation is up to you to show.

Like most liberals you want more spending, but you ignore the cost. The cost is a structural weakness to the market. The government has to steal the money from somewhere, whether they borrow it, print it or tax it---it costs the economy one way or another.
Click to expand...
No, we have not done much on fiscal demand stimulation as compared to the size of this economy, and the costs have been below zero since bond costs were below the rate of inflation. We have had this same conversation time and again and you never remember the critical points.....but I suppose if you did it would cause much internal conflict....which is why you just repeat the old outdated memes applicable to other times.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Exactly, it is being paid back, ie it was not being spent as a demand stimulus. And the portion that went to the banks did not cause them to ease lending requirements. So any demand stimulation is up to you to show.

No, we have not done much on fiscal demand stimulation as compared to the size of this economy, and the costs have been below zero since bond costs were below the rate of inflation. We have had this same conversation time and again and you never remember the critical points.....but I suppose if you did it would cause much internal conflict....which is why you just repeat the old outdated memes applicable to other times.
Click to expand...

Maybe true, maybe not, but certainly off topic.:shock:
 
Jack Hays said:
You have no idea what tax reduction I intended. In fact, I meant both.
Click to expand...
I already said that demand side tax reduction was done, so stop dancing. Supply side tax reduction will not stimulate demand.
Again, I invite you to name a POTUS who has taken credit time after time after time for the same jobs, and in a way obviously intended to disguise his serial reuse of the same achievement.:cool:
Click to expand...
Only a fool would keep arguing that Presidents do not repeat talking points in speeches.

FFS!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I already said that demand side tax reduction was done, so stop dancing. Supply side tax reduction will not stimulate demand.
Only a fool would keep arguing that Presidents do not repeat talking points in speeches.

FFS!
Click to expand...

You're off topic, out of ammunition, and reduced to name calling. Poor show.:lamo
 
Jack Hays said:
You're off topic, out of ammunition, and reduced to name calling. Poor show.:lamo
Click to expand...
I did not call you a name, I said only a fool would keep thinking POTUS's do not repeat talking points.
 
Jack Hays said:
Foolish, stupid people make assertions without evidence.:lamo
Click to expand...
You mean like this?

Jack Hays said:
Yes. Unique. No other POTUS has presented old news so often as if it were new news.
Click to expand...

And lets just clarify this, President Obama, as cited in the article, made a claim in 3 different speeches, he repeated the same talking point 3 separate times.
If I decide to post Bush repeating a talking point in three different speeches, will that shut you up?
 
Bump..
Jack Hays said:
Foolish, stupid people make assertions without evidence.:lamo
Click to expand...
You mean like this?
Jack Hays said:
Yes. Unique. No other POTUS has presented old news so often as if it were new news.
Click to expand...

And lets just clarify this, President Obama, as cited in the article, made a claim in 3 different speeches, he repeated the same talking point 3 separate times.
If I decide to post Bush repeating a talking point in three different speeches, will that shut you up?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Bump..You mean like this?


And lets just clarify this, President Obama, as cited in the article, made a claim in 3 different speeches, he repeated the same talking point 3 separate times.
If I decide to post Bush repeating a talking point in three different speeches, will that shut you up?
Click to expand...

We're not talking about GWB, but knock yourself out. It doesn't make BHO more honest.

The Pinocchio Test

While the president has long preferred to point to the gain in jobs since early 2010 — the low point in employment during his presidency — the fact remains that manufacturing employment remains about 600,000 jobs smaller than when he took office. That stands in stark contrast to overall nonfarm employment — which is 2 million jobs larger.

Moreover, the growth in manufacturing jobs has basically stalled over the past year. The president’s continued use of this 500,000-job statistic, even as other job stats keep improving, suggests the news is not as good as advertised. Without some presidential acknowledgment that manufacturing job growth has slowed in the past year, it might be time to retire this talking point. :eek:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Bump..You mean like this?


And lets just clarify this, President Obama, as cited in the article, made a claim in 3 different speeches, he repeated the same talking point 3 separate times.
If I decide to post Bush repeating a talking point in three different speeches, will that shut you up?
Click to expand...

Hes being deceptive. Hes repeating the same metric on number of jobs created at three different points, several years apart. Making it looks as though it is new job creation recently in each speech when in fact...it isnt.

As for your other argument....you keep narrowing the acceptable criteria. If you could quit moving the goalposts, that would be nice.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I did not call you a name, I said only a fool would keep thinking POTUS's do not repeat talking points.
Click to expand...

But this POTUS depends on low information fools to keep sucking them up to regurgitate. I hope you're not one of them. Are you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom